Yes, seems like it should be all around cleaner too :)-Darin On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 9:43 AM, Adam Barth <[email protected]> wrote:
> I see. In this design, we would translate render_view_ids to > NativeViewIds on the IO thread instead of round-tripping the UI > thread. That seems workable without changing the semantics of the IPC > messages. > > Adam > > > On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 10:31 PM, Darin Fisher <[email protected]> wrote: > > We should definitely eliminate the need for the renderer to refer > directly > > to its native view. I have been gradually working in this direction. > > Instead of sending view ids around, it should be enough to reference the > > render_view_id (i.e., routing_id). We don't need to graph this mapping > onto > > RendererSecurityPolicy (in fact that would definitely overload the > meaning > > of renderer security policy). Instead, we should probably just build a > new > > mapping from render_view_id to object. Perhaps that mapping system could > be > > used by the RendererSecurityPolicy to store security bits associated with > > the render view so that we don't need to have two maps. > > I am already close to eliminating the NativeViewID parameters in the > WebKit > > API. > > -Darin > > > > On Sun, May 3, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Adam Barth <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Currently we have a handful of renderer -> browser IPC messages that > >> contain gfx::NativeViewIds: > >> > >> ViewHostMsg_GetWindowRect > >> ViewHostMsg_GetScreenInfo > >> ViewHostMsg_GetRootWindowRect > >> ViewHostMsg_GetRootWindowResizerRect > >> ViewHostMsg_ScriptedPrint > >> > >> These make me sad because the render could ask about random > >> NativeViewIds (HWNDs) that have nothing to do with that renderer. > >> There are two approaches we can use to correct these infelicities: > >> > >> 1) Change these message to avoid sending NativeViewIds. This seems > >> possible, but some unknown amount of work. > >> > >> 2) Add more state to RendererSecurityPolicy that tracks which > >> NativeViewIds each renderer is permitted to interrogate. > >> > >> I'm inclined to go with (2), but I wanted to check in with Mac / Linux > >> folks to make sure this makes sense for those platforms too. > >> > >> Thoughts? > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
